Stokka v. Stokka
Supreme Court of North Dakota · N.D. Sup. Ct. · North Dakota bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented appellant filed a divorce-appeal brief with no record citations whose few authorities were, per the Court, irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent.
Consequence
Judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8); appellee awarded $1,000 in double costs and attorney's fees.
Lesson
Here a brief lacking record references and relying on irrelevant or fictitious authority forfeited review and drew a fixed $1,000 costs-and-fees award.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Stokka v. Stokka, 2026 ND 94, No. 20250298 (N.D. May 7, 2026) (per curiam)
- Decided
- May 7, 2026
Summary
Timothy Jakob Stokka, representing himself, appealed a Cass County district court judgment and orders in divorce and custody proceedings brought by Laura Lynne Stokka (now Laura Lynne Raile). He argued that the judgment entered as a result of the marital termination agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and void or voidable because it was entered without enforcing a parenting time orientation requirement; that the court abused its discretion in denying his motions for contempt, reconsideration, and sanctions; that it erred in finding him a vexatious litigant under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. Rule 58; that it "misapplied the law in calculating his child support payments and denying retroactive credit of child support"; and that its rulings violated his due process and equal protection rights. Raile argued that his arguments were not adequately briefed. The Supreme Court agreed. It found that Stokka's brief lacked references to the evidentiary record supporting his statement of the facts and to the legal authorities on which he relied, and that "[t]he few legal authorities cited by Stokka are either irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent." For that point the Court cited City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, describing it as "explaining fake or nonexistent legal citations typically are the result of AI hallucinations and awarding $500 as a sanction for misconduct."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion calls the authorities in the brief "irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent" and cites City of Dickinson v. Helgeson as explaining that fake citations typically result from AI hallucinations, but makes no finding that the appellant used AI)
- Sanction amount:
- Fixed award of $1,000 in double costs and attorney's fees to the appellee (not labeled a sanction in the opinion)
What sanction did the court impose?
In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Stokka's brief did not comply with the minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28 and summarily affirmed the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8), which permits summary affirmance when an appellant's brief fails those requirements. The Court awarded Raile "double costs and attorney's fees in the amount of $1,000," citing Kantola v. Kantola, 2026 ND 57, for its discretion to award a fixed amount of attorney's fees when documentation of costs and fees does not accompany the filing. The award is a fixed costs-and-fees award: the opinion does not call it a sanction or cite N.D.R.App.P. 13, and it does not address any of Stokka's arguments on the merits. All five justices joined the opinion. In a later opinion, Mohamed Ali v. Saeed Osman, 2026 ND 156, the Court cited Stokka as an example of imposing costs and attorney's fees of $1,000 where the cited authorities were "either irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent."
Why does Stokka v. Stokka matter for law firms using AI?
Stokka is a short per curiam opinion, but it shows how the North Dakota Supreme Court has folded fictitious citations into its existing briefing rules. The Court did not hold a show-cause proceeding or make findings about how the authorities in Stokka’s brief were produced. It applied N.D.R.App.P. 28, which requires a statement of facts with record references and argument supported by the authorities relied on, and N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8), which allows summary affirmance when a brief falls short of those minimums. The fictitious citations are one reason the brief failed that test, alongside the missing record references.
The AI connection runs through a citation, not a finding. The Court’s only mention of AI is its parenthetical description of City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, 2026 ND 34, as “explaining fake or nonexistent legal citations typically are the result of AI hallucinations.” Whether Stokka used a generative tool is not addressed, and this entry does not assume he did.
The remedy was financial and fixed. The Court awarded “double costs and attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,000,” using Kantola v. Kantola to set a fixed figure where no fee documentation had been filed. Three months later, in Mohamed Ali v. Saeed Osman, 2026 ND 156, the Court cited Stokka alongside Helgeson when it imposed a $1,000 sanction on another self-represented appellant for fictitious citations.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Review appellate briefs for record references as well as citations. The Court summarily affirmed because the brief lacked both, before reaching any merits argument.
- Consider that a fee award can follow a deficient brief even when no fee documentation is filed. Citing Kantola v. Kantola, the Court fixed the amount at $1,000 in its discretion.
- Verify every authority in a brief before filing, whoever drafts it. The Court described the few authorities in this brief as irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent and treated that as part of a Rule 28 failure.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the opinion does not find that Stokka used generative AI; it cites Helgeson for the general point that fake citations typically result from AI hallucinations. Attribution of this brief to AI is a Charlotin and Ropes & Gray tracker inference.